Person at theater sues since they have to sit through commercials

Finally, a class-action lawsuit that I can relate to.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030220/film_nm/film_movieads_dc_1

It pisses me off to that you end up paying $10 just to set through some fucking commercials… and you can’t show up late as you never know how long the aforementioned fucking commercials will be… and you might not get good seats.

I hope the theater chains notice this and act on it. Its a shitty practice, IMHO.

YES!!

GOOD ON HER!

Whatever. Commercials at the theater suck, but this isn’t gonna get rid of them. At this point it’s very clear that part of the “product” you pay for at the theater involves some degree of commercials. It’s not as if there haven’t been previews (ie, commercials for other movies) before movies for the past umpteen years.

Well, we should clarify something – she’s not suing because the theatre shows commercials, but because the show does not actually start at the stated time due to the commercials.

So, if by some miracle, this case isn’t dismissed, and if by an even bigger miracle, it wins, there will still be commercials, it’s just the showtime will reflect the actual start time.

I think she’s got a case. When the theaters charge for a movie, and that movie is advertised as starting at 9:00, then by God, that movie SHOULD start at 9:00. If you have to sit through 4 minutes of commercials starting at 9:00, then the customer should be recompensated for the time lost.

4 Fucking minutes?! Lucky… The last few movies I went to had a minumum of 15.

Recompensated for time lost? Why? What if the movie’s 3 hours long, would you sue to get the last hour ‘back’? You pay to sit and look at what they show you, not for a set block of time. The entertainment, such as it is, starts at the time advertised.

Upon further consideration, she really doesn’t have a leg to stand on. If she didn’t want to see the commercials, she shouldn’t have gone to the theater. Theater owners have the right to show whatever the hell they want on their screens. This really is the definition of a frivolous lawsuit.

I still hope she wins.

This one’s even lamer than the “McDonald’s made me fat!” lawsuit. Even before theaters started showing these commercials, the start time listed was the time the previews (which are commercials themselves, after all) started, not the movie. That’s the policy for Loews at least, and although I’m not sure about other chains, I wouldn’t be surprised if they behaved similarly. (The other theater near my house is a Regal, and I think that’s what they do also.) It’s not some big secret, the people working there will let you know that that’s what the start times mean. I worked for Loews for a couple of summers in college, so I probably dislike the company’s executives even more than you guys do, and I still think this is ridiculous.

[sarcasm]
I think I’m going to sue my employer tomorrow because when my lunch hour starts I don’t get to actually start eating at the exact moment it starts. I have to stand in a line to order and then pay for my food first. :rolleyes:
[/sarcasm]

What a load of shit.

One of the theatres I frequented in the 'burbs of Detroit (probably Auburn Hills or Troy) used to post the time the actual movie would start, and would make not on all their show listings that previews began 15 minutes before that. So if you wanted to see the previews, you knew to show up early enough for it. A little different than I’m used to, but I got accustomed to it after awhile.

“Theater owners have the right to show whatever the hell they want on their screens.”

Not exactly.

The ticket is viewed as a contract. The agreement implicit in this contract is that in exchange for the price of two DVD rentals and your promise not to bring in any food or drink that he didn’t sell you, the theater owner will let you sit in an uncomfortable chair inside a large, dark, poorly air-conditioned, sticky-floored room with 200 obnoxious, inconsiderate strangers and watch a movie on a torn screen with a horrible sound system. (Heck, for only an additional $15 you can eat a handful of styrofoam coated in artificial butter-flavored grease and drink a flat, watered-down beverage!)

The only real work the theater-owner has to do is make sure the movie starts at the time agreed to in the contract, a time clearly stated in the theater’s advertising.

To start the movie at a different time, say the time it takes to show a number of large-screen advertisements for cars or colas, is at best misleading. At worst it’s fraud, which, as I understand it, is the point of the suit.

Additionally, I think comparing product advertisements to previews is specious. Previews of coming attractions have been a part of the movie-going experience since the advent of “talkies”. Chevy ads haven’t.

I guess I’m most disgusted that I was born too late to see cartoons running before features, but right on time to see TV ads doing it. Mass entertainment just isn’t fun any more… :frowning:

[continuing dwc’s sarcasm]
Yeah, it really sucks that they make you clock out to go to the can, too, right?
[/dwc’s sarcasm]

:rolleyes:

Movie start times are irrelevant. From all the times I’ve been to a movie, the start time is when the house lights are turned down and the projector starts. There is no end time, however; thus there is no “block of time” you are paying for. You’re paying to see the movie, and the admission fee is the same whether it’s ninety minutes long, or three-and-a-half hours long. If the cinema chooses to add four minutes of commercials in front of it well, that’s their right. If they’d cut four minutes from the movie to make room for the advertisements, I’d say she had a case.

In short, suck it up lady, and get on with your life.

All these posts on the actual merits of the case… I think there’s a big picture being missed.

Abuse of litigation is running rampant, so why not harness it for good? If enough nuisance lawsuits are launched, the eventual cost of hiring somebody to go down and have the case dismissed will exceed the revenue produced by the commercials.

We could kill spam and telemarketing the same way.

The path to a brighter tomorrow is paved with irresponsible litigation, people. Let’s all get out there and sue someone!

Tygr I respectfully disagree. The contract is states when you buy a ticket, you will see the movie. Trailers and adverts aside–you will still see the movie. If you sincerely dislike the trailers and adverts, then rent the DVD. Or,

continued…
as an other option…open a theater where people won’t be subjected to advertisement. You could make a killing…

Just to attempt to address the comparison between movie previews and commercials before movies:

Movie trailers are more enjoyable than commercials. First of all, they’re informing you of a new feature that–prior to the advent of the Internet, at least–many people may not have known about. My friend found out about LOTR being released as a movie when we went to go see Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. She was way beyond thrilled. Often, theatre trailers come out before the TV commericals. Also, they target their audience–the audience came to see a movie; why not tell them about more movies?

The commercials, though, have nothing to do with movies. They sell me things that I don’t particularly need or want. They talk about products and/or organizations that I already know about (“gee? We have an army? Golly gee, Myrtle, I didn’t know we had a dang-nabbed army. I thought we fought WW2 just by lookin’ pretty and collecting pots and pans! An army…wow. Sign me up!”). They don’t cater to the moviegoer. And there’s no variety. Every damn movie I saw over the course of an entire YEAR had a commercial for Wild Cherry Pepsi before it.

I do think the lawsuit is kinda silly, though.

The fking worst here is that the newest cinema is putting an INTERVAL!!! bang slap in the middle of films.

When I went to see Harry Potter 2, not only were there 40 minutes of trailers beforehand, plus a fifteen minute interval totally breaking up the fucking continuity and suspense in the middle. (And no warning of the interval, nor any announcement how long it was going to be, so people could know whether to visit the bathroom/buy food/make phone calls.

I mean I don’t have kids, but Harry Potter is a fucking kid-oriented family movie. Ergo parents choosing the 6pm performance probably have slightly younger kids with earlier bedtimes. So for them to be kept in the cinema an hour longer than necessary - especially for such a long film - is totally fucking stupid, crap, and just what I would expect of some total fucking stupid brand new cinema in fucking Jumeirah.

Amusingly, the other main rival cinema, which has much nicer seats, is now advertising its films as “interval free.” FUCK YOU, Mercato Mall. Welcome back, City Centre.